Whether Article 7-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act is unconstitutional (negative)

The provisions of Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year before the date inheritance commences, there is a high possibility that the disposal proceeds or loan money will be donated or inherited to an heir in cash, so among them, with respect to the amount, the purpose of which is objectively unclear, it is to prevent the act of unfairly reducing inheritance taxes by including it in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes, the heir recognizes it as having received cash inheritance under a certain condition, and thereby, it is difficult

Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 23 of the Constitution

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3460 delivered on December 19, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Provisions of Article 7-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in cases where an ancestor disposes of inherited property or bears an obligation within one year before the date inheritance commences, there are many possibilities that the proceeds from the disposal of the inherited property or the proceeds from the loan will be donated or inherited in cash to an heir. As such, with respect to the amount objectively unclear, the proceeds from the disposal of the property or the proceeds from the loan shall be deemed as having received cash inheritance, and the heir, under certain conditions, seeks to prevent the act of unfairly reducing inheritance taxes by including it in the taxable amount

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case, which included the amount of KRW 109,041,373 in the taxable value among the debts owed by the plaintiff non-party 1 within one year from the commencement of the inheritance, was legitimate, because the plaintiff used the amount of KRW 36,00,00 in the repayment of debts to the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 and the amount of KRW 36,000 in the repayment of debts to the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, 2, 3, and 4-1 to the non-party 4 to the non-party 3 and the non-party 3 and non-party 2 to the non-party 2 for the reason that the testimony of the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 included the above amount in the taxable value for the reason that there is no other evidence and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the application of Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)